Skip to main content
Glama

Malwarebazaar

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Get Sample Info

get_sample_info
Read-onlyIdempotent

Metadata for a malware sample by hash (md5/sha1/sha256). Returns file type, signature, file_name, first/last seen, tags, family, intel sources.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hashYesmd5 / sha1 / sha256

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countYesNumber of samples returned
queryYesQuery type used (get_info)
statusYesQuery status (ok, no_results, or null)
samplesYesArray of sample metadata objects

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "hash": "d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e"
+  },
+  {
+    "hash": "356a192b7913b04c54574d18c28d46e6395428ab"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "count": {
+      "description": "Number of samples returned",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "query": {
+      "description": "Query type used (get_info)",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "samples": {
+      "description": "Array of sample metadata objects",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Query status (ok, no_results, or null)",
+      "enum": [
+        "ok",
+        "no_results",
+        null
+      ],
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "query",
+    "status",
+    "count",
+    "samples"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the specific return fields but no additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. No unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one parameter, good annotations, and an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, input, and output without needing further details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter is fully documented. The description reiterates the hash types but adds no new meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it retrieves metadata for a malware sample by hash, listing specific return fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_family or search_signature by focusing on hash-based lookup.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies use when you have a hash, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Malwarebazaar toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are near-duplicates: ask_pipeworx_beta is described as currently identical to ask_pipeworx, and ask_pipeworx_grounded is the same router with extra verification. Malware sample searches also overlap across search_family, search_tag, search_signature, and recent_samples, while ai_visibility_check is wrapped by scan_competitor_ai_presence.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set mostly uses snake_case and verb-first names like get_sample_info and validate_claim, which is helpful. However, conventions are mixed across ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, search_*, and noun-style names like recent_samples and entity_profile, so there is no single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is already over the comfortable range, but the bigger issue is that the server is named Malwarebazaar while only about five tools actually deal with malware. The remaining tools belong to an unrelated data-research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription platform, making the count inappropriate for the server's apparent purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the MalwareBazaar domain, the set covers metadata lookups and filtered sample searches but lacks sample submission, retrieval, or deeper analysis workflow. The rest of the tool surface targets unrelated domains, so there is no coherent, complete lifecycle for either malware intelligence or the broader feature set.

Resources